martinb wrote:ray, im thinking they will be flippy if your really put some muscle into it..... will be curious to see what you find out. what if innova made a monster lightweight? that might work better than a katana for sure.....

The weight itself doesn't usually make them less stable, it's the fact that lighter discs tend to have a lower PLH (exceptions exist like the Starlites). If they've managed to get the PLH to stay the same while making the disc lighter with this technique, it should be just as stable, just more touchy with regard to OAT etc.

but DGCR told me that light weights are really flippy!!!

i once said this in a thread over there and everyone started yelling at me

I am flicking the lightest star Katanas I can find, about 164-165g., with success in calm conditions, so I will be curious to hear how your blizzard 4-pack does on the course. The images appear to show a greater number of bubbles in the flight plate compared to the rim, potentially altering the weight distribution for a given shape. If so, then all four should be more or less stable compared to their bubbleless counterparts. I agree with a previous post that the inspiration for this technology was likely born in the attempt to keep bubbles out of the injection molding process, causing the clearer discs to become X-outs. Three thoughts. Will this process degrade durability? Will I even care if it gives me increased distance & control? Can they use helium inside the bubbles for even greater effect? Tell me what I need to hear, Ray.

Jesse B 707 wrote:Light discs are just easier to get up to cruising speed and as someone said usually mold up differently (lpl)

The force that the air exerts on a disc in flight depends only on its shape (plus speed and angle of attack), not its mass. This is a fundamental theorem of aerodynamics.

However, the rate of turn (either direction) will be faster for a lighter disc, since it has a smaller moment of inertia.

and you would think that its also easier to accelerate a disc with lower mass, since the energy required to accelerate it to X speed is lower when compared to a heavier disc.(Im no physics buff, but as far as I remember from long ago, this should hold true)

Jesse B 707 wrote:Light discs are just easier to get up to cruising speed and as someone said usually mold up differently (lpl)

The force that the air exerts on a disc in flight depends only on its shape (plus speed and angle of attack), not its mass. This is a fundamental theorem of aerodynamics.

However, the rate of turn (either direction) will be faster for a lighter disc, since it has a smaller moment of inertia.

and you would think that its also easier to accelerate a disc with lower mass, since the energy required to accelerate it to X speed is lower when compared to a heavier disc.(Im no physics buff, but as far as I remember from long ago, this should hold true)

Yep, and air resistance/wind will also slow it down and affect it more.

Parks wrote:If the posts on this forum are any indication, the PD is like a Teebird with sunshine coming out of its butthole so hard that it flies faster.

Jesse B 707 wrote:Light discs are just easier to get up to cruising speed and as someone said usually mold up differently (lpl)

The force that the air exerts on a disc in flight depends only on its shape (plus speed and angle of attack), not its mass. This is a fundamental theorem of aerodynamics.

However, the rate of turn (either direction) will be faster for a lighter disc, since it has a smaller moment of inertia.

and you would think that its also easier to accelerate a disc with lower mass, since the energy required to accelerate it to X speed is lower when compared to a heavier disc.(Im no physics buff, but as far as I remember from long ago, this should hold true)

Yep, and air resistance/wind will also slow it down and affect it more.

FYI, I wasn't disagreeing with what Jesse said...just adding onto it.

As Jesse said, since it's lighter, it is easier to get moving faster than a heavier disc. This is because it has less mass, and hence less inertia. But there are limits to this statement. For example, speed saturates as the disc reaches the zero mass limit. Reducing mass cannot help increase your arm/wrist speed more than having no disc at all. So the degree to which changes in mass help you throw faster also depends on the mass (i.e., non-linear).

What Jesse said about lighter weights having different shapes (molding up differently) is also true for many mold-plastic combinations. And I've seen lighter discs turn out more over-stable in some mold-plastic combinations (e.g., Star Classic Roc), so the manner of change in flight properties is not necessarily the same in each case.

Erm being not even a diletant in physics i have a question on that. I read through wikipedia result for parasitic drag and all the hyperlinks in all the resulting pages and man things get complicated, when you move beyond basic Bernoulli principle, which does not seem to work for gases, more accurate for liquids. And yes the old mantra of liquids and gases being both the same in fluid dynamics does not hold true in aerodynamics. thoughts? I am wondering it the bubbles change the shape of the disc and the surface. If there are changes i wonder about parasitic drag changes and real world inplications. I guess nobody knows before we get flight time on these.

Flat shots need running on the center line of the tee and planting each step on the center line. Anhyzer needs running from rear right to front left with the plant step hitting the ground to the left of the line you're running on. Hyzer is the mirror of that.

JR wrote:Erm being not even a diletant in physics i have a question on that. I read through wikipedia result for parasitic drag and all the hyperlinks in all the resulting pages and man things get complicated, when you move beyond basic Bernoulli principle, which does not seem to work for gases, more accurate for liquids. And yes the old mantra of liquids and gases being both the same in fluid dynamics does not hold true in aerodynamics. thoughts? I am wondering it the bubbles change the shape of the disc and the surface. If there are changes i wonder about parasitic drag changes and real world inplications. I guess nobody knows before we get flight time on these.

"Parasitic drag" is exactly what I mean when I say that the forces acting on a disc in flight depend only on its shape, both at large (form drag) and small (skin friction drag) scales.

Air vs water is a question of which dynamical regime you're talking about. Bernoulli's principle works for incompressible fluids with negligible viscosity. In air, in this condition is satisfied only at speeds much less than the speed of sound. Once you approach the speed of sound, the compressibility of air becomes important, and since air is vastly more compressible than water, differences arise. Above the speed of sound the dominant forces are in the shock wave. In water, on the other hand, under extreme flow conditions you can get different effects such as cavitation.

But the hand-thrown disc flies much slower than the speed of sound, and the assumption of incompressibility works fine. And air has a very small viscosity, you can only feel the resistance of the inertia of air, not the viscosity of it. In which case, everything works fine.

i threw my buddy's destroyer he had. that thing was a damn soup bowl,soooo domey. anywho,i threw it a few times and it basically had some extra turn to it thrown with a touch of hyzer. it was seriously easy to bomb out 400+ without even trying. the glide from the uber dome is definitely noticeable. id say these things fly like a seasoned star destroyer. i wouldnt call it flippy but definitely more understable than your standard current production destroyer. its just easier to get up to speed with it being light weight. one thing i noticed is that the fade is still there in the lower end of the flight so its still got LSS. i havent thrown any other molds in the light weights but the destroyer is nice and i might have to get one.